The effect of Portuguese nation brand on cognitive brand image: Portuguese and Canadian comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Anholt et al.’s (2008) model proposes six components to measure a national brand: Exports, Culture and Heritage, Governance, Investment and Immigration, Tourism, and People. This study intends to analyze the effect of each of those components associated to Portugal on cognitive brand image perceived by Portuguese and foreign (Canadian) people. The survey, based on literature review, was gathered in Portugal and Canada. In the Portuguese sample, findings demonstrate favourable classifications for the willingness to use Portuguese products and the country's contribution to innovation in science. However, the Portuguese do not perceive the country as cutting-edge. The Canadian respondents see Portugal as a creative country. On a less favourable note, Canadian respondents have a lower classification of Portugal's contribution to innovation in science, which sharply contrasts Portuguese results. Furthermore, Portugal is also less favourable seen as an innovative and cutting-edge country. Regarding the causal path analysis, for Portuguese respondents Investment and Immigration, Tourism, and People contribute significantly to a favourable cognitive image. For the Canadian sample population, Tourism and People have a significant impact on cognitive image. Globally, Portugal tends to be positively associated to tourism, culture, heritage, and people.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".